The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement
here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did
start the most arguments.
........ He was a bit of a
misfit in AUE because he got into so many disputes, usually because of
an inability to admit when he was wrong.
so many topics. Eventually a lot of people, including me, stoppedAnd his astonishing ability to be wrong or misleading so often on
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.
The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did start the most arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._Daniels
i thought that this page (for a long time) said that
PTD was among the most respected of the regulars of AUE, where
he is seen as the unofficial moderator.
-------- but i can't find that now.
_____________________________________
........ He was a bit of a
misfit in AUE because he got into so many disputes, usually because of
an inability to admit when he was wrong.
so many topics. Eventually a lot of people, including me, stopped correcting him. <<<And his astonishing ability to be wrong or misleading so often on
---------- What was he famously WRONG about ?
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.
The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did start the most arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._Daniels
i thought that this page (for a long time) said that
PTD was among the most respected of the regulars of AUE, where
he is seen as the unofficial moderator.
-------- but i can't find that now.
_____________________________________
........ He was a bit of a
misfit in AUE because he got into so many disputes, usually because of
an inability to admit when he was wrong.
so many topics. Eventually a lot of people, including me, stopped correcting him. <<<And his astonishing ability to be wrong or misleading so often on
---------- What was he famously WRONG about ?
On 4/13/2024 11:33 AM, HenHanna wrote:
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.
The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement
here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE
regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did
start the most arguments.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 12:57:39 -0700, HenHanna <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/13/2024 11:33 AM, HenHanna wrote:
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.
> The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where, >>> > that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement >>> > here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
> regulars. In
> particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE
> regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did >>> > start the most arguments.
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.
He became something of a notorious nuisance, a source of
misinformation about which he was in constant dispute. He was rather a disruptive influence.
He could contribute useful information on topics he knew something
about, but he became argumentative about things of which he was
altogether ignorant.
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.
On 7/22/2024 9:40 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.
When was that?
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.
(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:41:13 -0700, HenHanna <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/22/2024 9:40 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.
When was that?
I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.
(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most >>Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:41:13 -0700, HenHanna <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/22/2024 9:40 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.
When was that?
I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.
(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.
There was stuff about which he said questionable things, but not while >pretending to be some kind of authority.
[email protected] (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
I once jotted down something like
ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".
I once jotted down something like|before the intrusive r is completely wrong '-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".
»law and order« /ˈlσːəndˈσːɹdəɹ/ [ˈlɔˑʚɻən(d)ˈσƍdʌ]. |In the phonetic transcription, indicating two syllables
On 2018-01-07 04:41:06 +0000, Stefan Ram said:|
Will Parsons <[email protected]d> writes:
Upstate New York? Really? Are you sure they didn't originally come
from the Midwest?
Canepari says that the typical New-York accent is
non-rhotic, and "thus" has linking r and is prone to
intrusive r practice. As an example he gives:
»law and order« /ˈlσːəndˈσːɹdəɹ/ [ˈlɔˑʚɻən(d)ˈσƍdʌ].
That may have been true once, but, if I remember rightly, the late
lamented Larry Traske, who grew up in rural New York, said that it was
in the process of disappearing during his childhood: he said that he
himself spoke the old way, but his younger brother didn't.
(Sorry, but I can't make sense either of the characters you wrote above
(they have become mis-encoded somewhere), or the exchange(s?) you quoted >below (I can't tell who said what nor actually what the conversation, if
it's one, is about).
Stefan Ram <[email protected]> wrote:
(Sorry, but I can't make sense either of the characters you wrote aboveˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".
Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
Stefan Ram <[email protected]> wrote:
(Sorry, but I can't make sense either of the characters you wrote aboveˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".
Here's the whole shebang in ASCII:
MODIFIER LETTER VERTICAL LINE - meaning the next syllable is stressed
LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - to me that a bunched American r
MODIFIER LETTER SMALL W - that r is rounded! (because it's initial)
LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON - open "u"
MODIFIER LETTER HALF TRIANGULAR COLON - that open "u" is half-lenghtened LATIN SMALL LETTER U - a [u]
LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED R WITH FISHHOOK - American "t" of "router"
SPACE - I used it to end the syllable, similar to how Wells uses it
MODIFIER LETTER SMALL SCHWA - meaning some speakers insert a schwa here
LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - another bunched American r
COMBINING VERTICAL LINE BELOW - which is syllabic
. The "IPA" used above ain't your nana's brew - it's more
like a souped-up Wells model with some Canepari flair and my
own secret sauce thrown in. But hey, that "half-long" symbol?
That's straight-up textbook IPA, no bells and whistles!
PS: I ran a Python script to spit out the Unicode names from the IPA
string. The script was cooked up by a chatbot after I hit it with a
quick description of what I needed. Took me like a hot second to type
the description, way less time than if I'd written the script myself!
import unicodedata
def print_unicode_names( input_string ):
for char in input_string:
unicode_name = unicodedata.name( char, "Unknown" )
print( unicode_name )
sample_string = "INSERT IPA HERE"
print_unicode_names( sample_string )
It's half a long marker, which we usually write : for in here.
So you were trying to do a 'fully' precise transcription of _router_ in
(some dialect of) american, is that it?
The hypothesis that he didn't know the half length marker is
just not tenable.
Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
It's half a long marker, which we usually write : for in here.If you use ":" for half-lengthening, like in "oˑ",
what do you actually use for lengthening, like in "oː"?
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:10:44
From: Antonio Marques <[email protected]d>
Newsgroups: sci.lang, alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars ...
Stefan Ram <[email protected]> wrote:
Antonio Marques <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
Stefan Ram <[email protected]> wrote:
(Sorry, but I can't make sense either of the characters you wrote aboveˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".
Here's the whole shebang in ASCII:
MODIFIER LETTER VERTICAL LINE - meaning the next syllable is stressed
LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - to me that a bunched American r
MODIFIER LETTER SMALL W - that r is rounded! (because it's initial)
LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON - open "u"
MODIFIER LETTER HALF TRIANGULAR COLON - that open "u" is half-lenghtened LATIN SMALL LETTER U - a [u]
LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED R WITH FISHHOOK - American "t" of "router" SPACE - I used it to end the syllable, similar to how Wells uses it MODIFIER LETTER SMALL SCHWA - meaning some speakers insert a schwa here LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - another bunched American r
COMBINING VERTICAL LINE BELOW - which is syllabic
So you were trying to do a 'fully' precise transcription of _router_ in
(some dialect of) american, is that it? Then the characters weren't
garbled, I simply had no idea of the context (it's very rare that one would not write that inside [] in sci.lang).
. The "IPA" used above ain't your nana's brew - it's more
like a souped-up Wells model with some Canepari flair and my
own secret sauce thrown in. But hey, that "half-long" symbol?
That's straight-up textbook IPA, no bells and whistles!
It's half a long marker, which we usually write : for in here.
He could contribute useful information on topics he knew something
about, but he became argumentative about things of which he was
altogether ignorant.
ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:41:13 -0700, HenHanna <[email protected]>
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most >>Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.
Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:41:13 -0700, HenHanna <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/22/2024 9:40 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.
When was that?
I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter >>>> what evidence was put before him.
(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.
3. He was right (as usual), as in this specific case. That some of the core vocabulary is the shortest applies to almost any language and as such is
not relevant to the discussion.
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.
People desperately tried to jump on every unqualified statement of his for some interpretation that would make him 'wrong'.
And this "uw" is what some authors write as [ʊu]! Both
notations express that the first part is more open than the
second part, they just differ in whether the author sees the
first part to be more open than the cardinal [u] or the
second part to be closer than a cardinal [u] . . .
Conclusion: the easiest spelling, no matter how weird or irregular, is
always the one you are used to. Simplification always only makes
things harder.
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product >English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:25:25 +0000, [email protected]
In a.u.e., where linguistics isn't the topic as often as in sci.lang,
his
posts could have been a textbook of falsehoods, ad hominems,
misleading statements, half-truths, misunderstandings, unstated
assumptions, unhelpful attempts to help, rhetorical questions in
place of arguments, tastes and opinions and controversial ideas
stated as facts, and just about everything else that could provoke
a response. Was he doing it deliberately? I don't know.
One can't help but wonder what PTD does with his days, now. Before
leaving aue, he spent much of his day posting to aue. Losing aue must
be like Trump losing "Truth Social".
Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.
People desperately tried to jump on every unqualified statement of his for >some interpretation that would make him 'wrong'. What almost everyone does
is raise an objection to that course of action, but he consistently chose
to ignore that path, which in a way makes the other feel not acknowledged
as an interlocutor. That caused a huge amount of resentment, but who is to >blame? The answer depends on the degree of good faith on the part of those >trying to 'correct' him.
[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.
On 2024-07-26, Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.
But what _is_ PTD's area of actual expertise? Writing systems, I
guess, supported by the fact that he co-edited a book on the topic?
Semitic languages, maybe--or am I already misled by my own total
ignorance there?
Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:04:32 +0000: [email protected]
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in >the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product >English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short, >make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.
I think so too. I read and write standard English much more easily
than to write it in IPA. Also the more or less phonological spelling I myself devised in the 1970s, is very difficult to use even for me,
although it was designed with the express purpose of being easier.
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,
just like in the case of Chinese characters. (OK, there is debate
whether words in Chinese are often 2 or 3 characters, or just one
(learnt from PTD!), but that doesn't change the principle.)
On Sat, 27 Jul 2024 09:52:04 +0200, Ruud Harmsen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:04:32 +0000: [email protected]
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.
I think so too. I read and write standard English much more easily
than to write it in IPA. Also the more or less phonological spelling I >>myself devised in the 1970s, is very difficult to use even for me,
although it was designed with the express purpose of being easier.
I tend to agree there.
I've tried to learn Russian (visited there nearly 30 years ago). When
looking at a text, the words I know I can recognise immediately. Words
I don't know, I have to spell out letter by letter. And words that end
in -ego I pronounce as -yevo without even thinking about it, which
gives problems with Bulgarian and Serbian, because they don't
pronounce it like that.
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,
just like in the case of Chinese characters. (OK, there is debate
whether words in Chinese are often 2 or 3 characters, or just one
(learnt from PTD!), but that doesn't change the principle.)
I found my typing got better when I got in the habit, on making a mistake, of >deleting the entire word and starting it again, rather than the single >mis-typed letter. That is partial support for your idea. I haven’t seen this >approach suggested anywhere else, so it may not work for other people
I am very skeptical about "fully precise" transcriptions. In every
language I know, the range of pronunciations that native speakers produce
and that other native speakers perceive as distinct and free from dialect
is much broader than a fully precise transcription would specify.
On 2024-07-26, Helmut Richter <[email protected]> wrote:
I am very skeptical about "fully precise" transcriptions. In every
language I know, the range of pronunciations that native speakers produce
and that other native speakers perceive as distinct and free from dialect
is much broader than a fully precise transcription would specify.
Related:
"Annals of intervocalic coronal reduction" https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=65139
Mark Liberman has recently been hammering home the point that English
words in fluent speech are frequently not pronounced as you would
think they are.
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.
On 27/07/24 20:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.
The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk >backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this >disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by >responding with a non sequitur.
Also typical for the autistic spectrum --he frequently called people
'stupid' and 'liar'.
And then Cyrillic and Greek have quite a few letters in
common with Latin script, which makes it easier. My
Russian vocabulary is very thin, maybe 20 or 30 words, yet
I recognize quite a lot in Cyrillic text. Much more
difficult with the Arabic or Hebrew script.
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said
that the biggest drawback to teaching English was the
absence of more letters in the alphabet. It should be
expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product English
speakers would talk better and be better understood. In
short, make English more phonetic.
Rich Ulrich <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Also typical for the autistic spectrum --he frequently called people >>'stupid' and 'liar'.
I've never met an autistic person. But I've seen plenty of
self-proclaimed psychologists on Usenet diagnosing everyone
under the sun!
The diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can only be made by
qualified professionals who actually know what they're doing and have
the right training to spot the signs and symptoms. Usually, the whole
process involves clinical observations, interviews, questionnaires,
standardized tests, and a differential diagnosis. So yeah, even a
qualified pro can't just throw out a diagnosis based on Usenet posts!
No, wait, I /did/ have one student in a class once. Either
the admin or he himself told me before the course started,
"Heads up, autistic!" But honestly, I didn't see any of
the behaviors you mentioned in him.
Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:04:32 +0000: [email protected]
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product >>English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.
I think so too. I read and write standard English much more easily
than to write it in IPA. Also the more or less phonological spelling I
myself devised in the 1970s, is very difficult to use even for me,
although it was designed with the express purpose of being easier.
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,Yes but there are two different schemes. One set of pronunciation and
just like in the case of Chinese characters. (OK, there is debate
whether words in Chinese are often 2 or 3 characters, or just one
(learnt from PTD!), but that doesn't change the principle.)
And yes, of course my fingers do type separate letters while I compose
this message, but my brain thinks in English words and expressions
while I do it. Via a built-up routine, by lots of practice every day, something in my brain or spine translates those thoughts into finger movements on the keyboards, in cooperation with my eyes.
consciously know how that works, but it does.
When I try to control it consciously, it is disrupted!
Conclusion: the easiest spelling, no matter how weird or irregular, is
always the one you are used to. Simplification always only makes
things harder.
If the OP who initiated this thread - an airhead and nincompoop in his
own right - really wants to tap into "the most-respected of AUE
regulars" thoughts, he should email PTD directly. (Someone please
provide the clucking Hen with PTDs email.)
Sat, 27 Jul 2024 12:00:42 +0200: Steve Hayes <[email protected]> >scribeva:
I've tried to learn Russian (visited there nearly 30 years ago). When >>looking at a text, the words I know I can recognise immediately. Words
I don't know, I have to spell out letter by letter. And words that end
in -ego I pronounce as -yevo without even thinking about it, which
gives problems with Bulgarian and Serbian, because they don't
pronounce it like that.
Right. And then Cyrillic and Greek have quite a few letters in common
with Latin script, which makes it easier. My Russian vocabulary is
very thin, maybe 20 or 30 words, yet I recognize quite a lot in
Cyrillic text. Much more difficult with the Arabic or Hebrew script.
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,
Word pictures, says my fat Van Dale translaton dictionary.
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.
The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,amusement
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great
here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did start the most arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._Daniels
i thought that this page (for a long time) said that
PTD was among the most respected of the regulars of AUE, where
he is seen as the unofficial moderator.
-------- but i can't find that now.
_____________________________________
........ He was a bit of aof
misfit in AUE because he got into so many disputes, usually because
an inability to admit when he was wrong.
so many topics. Eventually a lot of people, including me, stoppedAnd his astonishing ability to be wrong or misleading so often on
correcting him. <<<
---------- What was he famously WRONG about ?
[...] In my study of Irish I am struggling badly with spelling. That is because Irish spelling has so many silent letters. (That is why I never heard my grandfather say anything.) Some consonants are silent because of lenition or eclipsis. Some vowels are silent because of the rule "slender with slender, broad with broad" that inserts extra silent vowels to match the adjacent consonants. The end result is that the spoken word is a lot shorter than the written word.
But, of course, familiarity matters. I can recognise the word "bhfuil", whose pronunciation is non-intuitive, because I've seen it so often. I
am almost at the point where "mo mhathair" has an obvious spelling. So
maybe I'll get there eventually.
[Positive: I can now say "Tá penna m'aintín ar bhuró m'uncail", so maybe I'm making progress.]
Yes, I know Shaw specified that the accent of His Late Majesty King
George V should be the norm, but how many people have access to
recordings of his speech,
and would all schools using English as a
medium of instruction force all pupils to speak like that?
On Sat, 27 Jul 2024 21:07:49 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 27/07/24 20:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.
The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.
Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).
I learned about autism and Aspergers when trying to figure out
what was wrong with a bright fellow who started contributing
and arguing in the statistics groups. He also refused to reread
what was written, to see that he got something wrong, which
happened fairly often. - He was a smart mathematician but he
had no experience with research, which is where the questions
cam from.
Also typical for the autistic spectrum --he frequently called people
'stupid' and 'liar'. STUPID meant he didn't understand what was said,
and LIAR meant he thought it was 'obviously' wrong. Oh, a lot of
autistics have trouble (for instance) in learning to 'choose the best
answer' on multiple choice when unsure, because endorsing an
answer that they are not sure of feels too much like lying, which
they avoid (and are very bad at).
[Positive: I can now say "Tá penna m'aintín ar bhuró m'uncail", so
maybe I'm making progress.]
Penna isn’t a word; did you mean peann? Next step; render « La plume
de ma tante est près de la chaise de ma tante. »
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:08:25 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]> wrote:
When he did things like claiming that he never said something, and the
proof of his having said it was obvious, especially so when what he said
was actually quoted in his posting denying it, there was no
'desperately' involved.
I think "People jumped in frustrated by PTD's misstatements..." better described the reaction to PTD's many unqualified statements.
When he did things like claiming that he never said something, and the
proof of his having said it was obvious, especially so when what he said
was actually quoted in his posting denying it, there was no
'desperately' involved.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
[...] and would all schools using English as a medium of instruction force all pupils to speak like that?
In Britain, well within my lifetime, class accent
mattered so much that in the 1950's many schools actively
discouraged regional accents and promoted RP. In my
childhood in north England, school teachers constantly
corrected local accents. Out of school, many parents of my
generation were paying for their child's private
"elocution " lessons.
On 27/07/2024 18:52, Rich Ulrich wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
On 27/07/24 20:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.
The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.
Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).
Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
behaviour. Have a sift:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Just for starters:
- Escalation of commitment: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment>
- Illusory truth effect: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect>
- Big Ego. As the editor of Biometrika for 35 years, he would certainly
not like to be corrected.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).
Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
behaviour. Have a sift:
Le 28/07/2024 à 10:57, occam a écrit :
On 27/07/2024 18:52, Rich Ulrich wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
On 27/07/24 20:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several >>>>> people had produced evbidence that it was true.
The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by >>>> responding with a non sequitur.
Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).
Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
behaviour. Have a sift:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Just for starters:
- Escalation of commitment:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment>
- Illusory truth effect:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect>
- Big Ego. As the editor of Biometrika for 35 years, he would certainly
not like to be corrected.
Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out >they're wrong.
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1.
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:57:29 +0100, Hibou <[email protected]d> wrote:
Le 28/07/2024 à 10:57, occam a écrit :
On 27/07/2024 18:52, Rich Ulrich wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
On 27/07/24 20:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several >>>>>> people had produced evbidence that it was true.
The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk >>>>> backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this >>>>> disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by >>>>> responding with a non sequitur.
Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).
Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
behaviour. Have a sift:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Just for starters:
- Escalation of commitment:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment>
- Illusory truth effect:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect>
- Big Ego. As the editor of Biometrika for 35 years, he would certainly >>> not like to be corrected.
Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.
Consider this combination: Asserting something that is not true
is LYING.
LYING is very bad, like, a bad sin.
So one is careful
in what one asserts. And one does not want to admit to the
sin of being wrong. This creates a certain internal conflict,
because there is also the notion that a 'sin' should be something
that was intentional; and the original mis-statement is not
something that one regrets.
Arindan's experience was nothing in this field as compared to his wife,
a teacher of the English language. Who also taught their children
English. The elder child learnt Hindi first, in India. With its far
larger alphabet and phonetic scheme that makes learning the language
easy and standardised even with incompetent teachers and near zero
teaching aids.
English was learnt later as much phonetically as
possible. Then there had to be the effort of knowing what word is
pronounced how and that was some effort. She has been a primary school >teacher in Australia for decades and her experience of teaching English
to little ones in two continents is unrivalled. Shaw noted that those
who learn English as a foreign language often speak better than the
natives. Not just some educated Indians; the Afghan migrants to
Australua also speak English beautifully. Their languages too have a
phonetic basis.
Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:16:10 +0000: [email protected]
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
Arindan's experience was nothing in this field as compared to his wife,
a teacher of the English language. Who also taught their children
English. The elder child learnt Hindi first, in India. With its far
larger alphabet and phonetic scheme that makes learning the language
easy and standardised even with incompetent teachers and near zero
teaching aids.
But it has very complicated ligatures, I think I read? And sometimes a
next character visually appears to the right, not the left, of the
previous character.
been looking into for some time, anyway, which is a remote member of
the same Brahmian family of scripts.
English was learnt later as much phonetically as
possible. Then there had to be the effort of knowing what word is >>pronounced how and that was some effort. She has been a primary school >>teacher in Australia for decades and her experience of teaching English
to little ones in two continents is unrivalled. Shaw noted that those
who learn English as a foreign language often speak better than the >>natives. Not just some educated Indians; the Afghan migrants to
Australua also speak English beautifully. Their languages too have a >>phonetic basis.
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as
standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.
Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read >two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:29:10 +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-07-26, Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:41:13 -0700, HenHanna <[email protected]>
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most >>>>Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
It's not wrong just because PTD said it. Over on Language Log, the
eminent sinologist Victor Mair also keeps pointing out that the
Chinese thinking that a Chinese character/syllable equals a word
is just not true and that most of the Chinese lexicon is made from
a combinations of two morphemes and rendered in two characters.
Mair contributed a chapter to Daniels and Bright, so he was probably
the source for PTD's knowledge of that.
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.
But what _is_ PTD's area of actual expertise? Writing systems, I
guess, supported by the fact that he co-edited a book on the topic?
He's also written a book on writing systems.
https://www.amazon.com/Exploration-Writing-Peter-T-Daniels/
As you probably noticed, his guest post on Language Log on writing
systems was well received.
Semitic languages, maybe--or am I already misled by my own total
ignorance there?
He knows a lot more than I do about all of the Semitic languages
except Hebrew, but on the other hand he wrote
'Hebrew does not have subordinating conjunctions. It uses parataxis, not >hypotaxis. KJV tried to translate literally, word by word, so "and" was
used
wherever wa-(and allomorphs) appeared.'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/MZ7qGDVppiU/m/4h_E2sqqBAAJ
The subject was the King James Bible, but it was still misleading
not to say that modern Hebrew has several subordinating conjunctions
and uses them often.
(Note how effectively that could lead to an
argument. "That doesn't apply at all to modern Hebrew." "The
subject is obviously Biblical Hebrew." "But...")
More to the point, the statement is not true even of Biblical Hebrew.
It has /fewer/ subordinating conjunctions than modern European
languages and uses hypotaxis /less/, but it does use hypotaxis. For
instance
'asher or she- 'that, which, what': "I am that I am"
ki 'that, because, when': "And God blessed the seventh day, and
sanctified
it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
and made.' (The "which" there is 'asher again.)
k- 'like, as': "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth
my soul
after thee, O God."
l-ma`an 'so that': "Therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may
live."
The statement that the KJV used "and" whenever "wa-" appeared is
very close to true, I believe. However "Therefore" in "Therefore
choose life" is u-, an allomorph of wa-, as PTD put it. (I just noticed >that.)
Having gone back to Irish after twenty years recently the spelling is fine, >there is rhyme and reason to it. You’ll get there I’m sure.
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
And there is the problem. In a phonetic system one learns the language
well long before it is 6.
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,
Yes but there are two different schemes. One set of pronunciation and >spelling based on rules and the other without.
Sun, 28 Jul 2024 01:36:09 +0000: [email protected]
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as
standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.
I don't really understand much of what you write here. But I do know
that Fernando Pessoa in his "A hora do Diabo" posited that God is
reality and the Devil is dream. God is Creation, the Devil is
Creativity.
https://rudhar.com/writings/Pessoa/HoraDiab/hrddb-ia.htm
Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read >>two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.
I don't get it. What was it?
Sun, 28 Jul 2024 01:36:09 +0000: [email protected]
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who
read two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.
I don't get it. What was it?
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:57:29 +0100, Hibou wrote:
Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.
Consider this combination: Asserting something that is not true
is LYING. LYING is very bad, like, a bad sin. So one is careful
in what one asserts. And one does not want to admit to the
sin of being wrong. This creates a certain internal conflict,
because there is also the notion that a 'sin' should be something
that was intentional; and the original mis-statement is not
something that one regrets.
Bill (stats-resident Aspie) would justify his (very rare) backing
down by asserting that there are two different 'cases' and he
was thinking of the other (and more important, somehow) one.
Sun, 28 Jul 2024 01:36:09 +0000: [email protected]
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as
standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.
I don't really understand much of what you write here. But I do know
that Fernando Pessoa in his "A hora do Diabo" posited that God is
reality and the Devil is dream. God is Creation, the Devil is
Creativity.
https://rudhar.com/writings/Pessoa/HoraDiab/hrddb-ia.htm
Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read >>two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.
I don't get it. What was it?
Rich Ulrich <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described|It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right.
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1.
Kathryn Schulz "On being wrong" (TED Talk) (2011-03)
On 29/07/24 19:25, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>
wrote:
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My
uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.
So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".
So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as if
it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>
wrote:
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My
uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.
So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".
I don't think you are understanding Rich's post. He isn't describing
his feelings, he is describing the clinical issue of Aspergers from the
point of view of the symptomatic individual. Both the issue of the
"sin" and the whether an accidental untruth is a lie is part of what
they experience, according to his research and his prior contact with
an actual symptomatic individual.
On 29/07/2024 12:25, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 29/07/24 19:25, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>
wrote:
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My
uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.
So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".
So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as if
it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.
Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to misle >people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A poster
here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which I'm
prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.
Le 28/07/2024 à 20:10, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:57:29 +0100, Hibou wrote:
Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.
Consider this combination: Asserting something that is not true
is LYING. LYING is very bad, like, a bad sin. So one is careful
in what one asserts. And one does not want to admit to the
sin of being wrong. This creates a certain internal conflict,
because there is also the notion that a 'sin' should be something
that was intentional; and the original mis-statement is not
something that one regrets.
In Usenet forums, I don't think deliberate lying is much of a problem,
but people are often mistaken. It's hard to admit that one is in error;
it throws doubt on one's ability. Also, our beliefs are part of who we
are; to let one go is to lose part of oneself.
Bill (stats-resident Aspie) would justify his (very rare) backing
down by asserting that there are two different 'cases' and he
was thinking of the other (and more important, somehow) one.
Well, numerous authors - Overstreet and Carnegie, for instance - have
written of how reluctant people are to change their minds - and not just >autistic people. I expect all salesmen can tell tales about that (Dale >Carnegie was one, of course).
On 29/07/24 16:45, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Sun, 28 Jul 2024 01:36:09 +0000: [email protected]
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who
read two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.
I don't get it. What was it?
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My uncles
used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 6:45:51 +0000, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Sun, 28 Jul 2024 01:36:09 +0000: [email protected]
(bertietaylor) scribeva:
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as >>>standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.
I don't really understand much of what you write here. But I do know
that Fernando Pessoa in his "A hora do Diabo" posited that God is
reality and the Devil is dream. God is Creation, the Devil is
Creativity.
https://rudhar.com/writings/Pessoa/HoraDiab/hrddb-ia.htm
Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read >>>two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.
I don't get it. What was it?
Toothpaste
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which I'm
prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.
I would have disagreed with him about this and other things at the
time if he had handled disagreement in a decent way and had
shown that he could learn from correction.
Hibou wrote:
In Usenet forums, I don't think deliberate lying is much of a problem,
but people are often mistaken. It's hard to admit that one is in error;
it throws doubt on one's ability. Also, our beliefs are part of who we
are; to let one go is to lose part of oneself.
You are still missing the idea that autistics often 'relate
differently' to the idea of truth vs. falsehood; 'innocent mistake' is
not in their working vocabulary.
I don't know how much of their problem is created or influenced
by the aftermath of their own social ineptness -- a feature
have not been discussing. The Usenet autism group once posted
a note by a woman who said that her child's kindergarten teacher
praised the daughter for her 'maturity' since she never joined in
when kids were bullying or hassling. The teacher did not
recognize that the daughter was not mature, she simply did not
UNDERSTAND why the bullying was taking place; she did not
join in automatically, because she did not fit in.
Aspies are not insulted by the same things neurotypicals
consider insulting, so they make social mistakes. They get called
Stupid or Liar when they claim they did not UNDERSTAND that
someone would (or would not) be offended by something.
" - Okay, you insulted my shirt. My mama picked it out, not me.
Why should I be offended?" Or the Aspie might insult a shirt,
while imagining they were offering a trivial observation. [...]
Le 29/07/2024 à 17:21, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
Hibou wrote:
In Usenet forums, I don't think deliberate lying is much of a problem,
but people are often mistaken. It's hard to admit that one is in error;
it throws doubt on one's ability. Also, our beliefs are part of who we
are; to let one go is to lose part of oneself.
You are still missing the idea that autistics often 'relate
differently' to the idea of truth vs. falsehood; 'innocent mistake' is
not in their working vocabulary.
Is it not?
Perhaps there has been some drift in this discussion. I think its
starting point was your message ><news:[email protected]> (Sat. 27th at 12:52:19 >-0400) in which you described a character who refused to admit error and >called contradictors stupid and liars. You went on to infer that he
therefore had autism.
I think this inference is shaky.
I've been called stupid countless times, especially in Usenet fora, and
met many who have clung to demonstrably false beliefs (dear old >fr.soc.religion in its heyday!) - too many, I think, to infer that they
were all suffering from some syndrome or other. It's just human nature, >innit?
Citation du jour : « Passer pour un idiot aux yeux d'un imbécile est un >délice de fin gourmet » - Simenon (ou Courteline, peut-être, formulée >autrement ; les sources se contredisent).
I don't know how much of their problem is created or influenced
by the aftermath of their own social ineptness -- a feature
have not been discussing. The Usenet autism group once posted
a note by a woman who said that her child's kindergarten teacher
praised the daughter for her 'maturity' since she never joined in
when kids were bullying or hassling. The teacher did not
recognize that the daughter was not mature, she simply did not
UNDERSTAND why the bullying was taking place; she did not
join in automatically, because she did not fit in.
Aspies are not insulted by the same things neurotypicals
consider insulting, so they make social mistakes. They get called
Stupid or Liar when they claim they did not UNDERSTAND that
someone would (or would not) be offended by something.
" - Okay, you insulted my shirt. My mama picked it out, not me.
Why should I be offended?" Or the Aspie might insult a shirt,
while imagining they were offering a trivial observation. [...]
Goodness me! I am learning a lot. (I have Asperger's myself.)
On 29/07/2024 12:25, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 29/07/24 19:25, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan
<[email protected]> wrote:
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale.
My uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.
So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I
still tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".
So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as
if it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.
Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to
misle people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A
poster here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which
I'm prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 12:40:26 +0100, Phil <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On 29/07/2024 12:25, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 29/07/24 19:25, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>
wrote:
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My
uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.
So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".
So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as if
it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.
Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to misle
people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A poster
here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which I'm
prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.
Some years ago, aue featured various offerings of misling spellings,
and we also reported cases of mishy-phenation. The cow-orker was
a favorite example of the latter. I offered an example I ran into in
the wild, mans-laughter.
Hibou wrote:
I've been called stupid countless times, especially in Usenet fora, and
met many who have clung to demonstrably false beliefs (dear old
fr.soc.religion in its heyday!) - too many, I think, to infer that they
were all suffering from some syndrome or other. It's just human nature,
innit?
I will repeat, neurotypicals (NTs) and Aspies overlap a lot. But when
a person shows a bunch of separate, rare traits ...
that is what
adds up to a diagnosis. And, How often does a behavior show up?
I counted at one time -- in a month, Bob called 11 different people
Stupid or Liar. Or it might have been about that many for each
word (it's been a long time). Do you excuse that as 'human nature'?
I found myself interacting with him a lot because I had sort of taken
on the task of a monitor in the stats groups,
and he was prone to
(even) start out, like, "You must be stupid to ask THAT." This was
from a guy who spent his working life as a college professor who
was not well liked by his students (and there is another story,
there).
I don't know how much of their problem is created or influenced
by the aftermath of their own social ineptness -- a feature
have not been discussing. The Usenet autism group once posted
a note by a woman who said that her child's kindergarten teacher
praised the daughter for her 'maturity' since she never joined in
when kids were bullying or hassling. The teacher did not
recognize that the daughter was not mature, she simply did not
UNDERSTAND why the bullying was taking place; she did not
join in automatically, because she did not fit in.
Aspies are not insulted by the same things neurotypicals
consider insulting, so they make social mistakes. They get called
Stupid or Liar when they claim they did not UNDERSTAND that
someone would (or would not) be offended by something.
" - Okay, you insulted my shirt. My mama picked it out, not me.
Why should I be offended?" Or the Aspie might insult a shirt,
while imagining they were offering a trivial observation. [...]
Goodness me! I am learning a lot. (I have Asperger's myself.)
You're welcome?
So he did (and does) have knowledge of Hebrew grammar after all.
Some knowledge. "A little learning is a dangerous thing."
I'm by no means an expert on Hebrew, much less Biblical Hebrew,
but I'm capable of recognizing obvious facts and I have some idea
of the limits of my knowledge.
Hm. You should hear my students on "calorimeter". Maybe they think
it's more similar to "millimeter" than to "perimeter". I admit that
a colleague of mine, not a native speaker of English, gets some of
the blame.
On 30/07/24 14:35, jerryfriedman wrote:
Hm. You should hear my students on "calorimeter". Maybe they think
it's more similar to "millimeter" than to "perimeter". I admit that
a colleague of mine, not a native speaker of English, gets some of
the blame.
We can draw a distinction between "meter" meaning "a device for
measuring something", and "metre" (with either spelling) meaning "a unit
of length". You can distinguish between the two classes by seeing where
the stress goes.
In the first group we have barOmeter, thermOmeter, calorImeter, accelerOmeter, and so on, all with stress on the third-last syllable.
In the second we have nAnometre, mIllimetre, cEntimeter, and so on, all
with first-syllable stress.
The example that breaks the pattern is that many (not all) people say kilOmeter, which should be a device for measuring kils.
It was a mistake to coin a word ending in -pic. We don't have many such words, but for all the ones I can think of there is a simple
pronunciation rule: the stress falls on the penultimate syllable.
Some years ago there was an attempt in AUE to introduce a new word: ellefescent. (Named for a regular known as LFS.) That coining was done
by people with a feel for the language. The pronunciation was obvious,
and the spelling didn't misle anyone.
Le 30/07/2024 à 09:55, Phil a écrit :
An English teacher at my old school always insisted that
'nomenclature' should be pronounced with stress on the first and third
syllables, so as to reflect its etymology. (I hadn't realised until
just now that he was in agreement with the AmE pronunciation -- BrE
uses second-syllable stress).
I don't think we ever asked him to say 'helicopter'.
Here comes a candle to light you to bed,
And here comes a chopper to cut off your head!
An English teacher at my old school always insisted that 'nomenclature' should be pronounced with stress on the first and third syllables, so as
to reflect its etymology. (I hadn't realised until just now that he was
in agreement with the AmE pronunciation -- BrE uses second-syllable
stress).
I don't think we ever asked him to say 'helicopter'.
On 29/07/24 21:40, Phil wrote:
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which
I'm prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.
I won't comment on the Dutch examples, because I'm not sure what rhymes
with what.
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:08:44 +1000, Peter Moylan
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 29/07/24 21:40, Phil wrote:
On 29/07/2024 12:25, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 29/07/24 19:25, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan
<[email protected]> wrote:
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called
Dietale. My uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an
Italian word.
So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I
still tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".
So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks
as if it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.
Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible
to misle people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a
tender age. A poster here a while back also brought us
'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk',
which I'm prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.
I won't comment on the Dutch examples, because I'm not sure what
rhymes with what. But in English, at least, anyone who invents a
new word needs to have a good feel for the spelling rules, which
among other things indicate how to pronounce the word.
Some people will claim that English has no consistent spelling
rules, but it does. (With, admittedly, some exceptions.) When
faced with an unknown word, most English speakers will agree on
how to pronounce it. The basic rule is "if it looks similar to a
known word, then it probably has a similar pronunciation".
It was a mistake to coin a word ending in -pic. We don't have
many such words, but for all the ones I can think of there is a
simple pronunciation rule: the stress falls on the penultimate
syllable.
I suppose whoever coined "biopic" was thinking of "biopsy" rather
than "myopic". But I've also seen, in writing, people using
"optics" in peculiar ways that suggest that they are not talking
about lens construction.
On 2024-07-26, bertietaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product
English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.
His view was that English spelling privileges the morphological
principle over the phonemic principle, and that this is actually
optimally suited for English.
That is not an unreasonable position to take, per se, but it would
require a much bigger supporting argument than Daniels' flat-out
assertion.
Some people will claim that English has no consistent spelling rules,
but it does. (With, admittedly, some exceptions.)
It was a mistake to coin a word ending in -pic. We don't have many such words, but for all the ones I can think of there is a simple
pronunciation rule: the stress falls on the penultimate syllable.
I suppose whoever coined "biopic" was thinking of "biopsy" rather than "myopic". But I've also seen, in writing, people using "optics" in
peculiar ways that suggest that they are not talking about lens
construction.
"The optics of a myopic biopic"
And "optics" brings up for me the even more old-fashioned image of a
watch repairer with a magnifying glass screwed into his eye examining
the workings of a clockwork watch.
On 2024-07-29 09:39, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 12:40:26 +0100, Phil <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On 29/07/2024 12:25, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 29/07/24 19:25, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My
uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.
So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".
So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as if
it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.
Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to misle >> people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A poster
here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which I'm
prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.
Some years ago, aue featured various offerings of misling spellings,
and we also reported cases of mishy-phenation. The cow-orker was
a favorite example of the latter. I offered an example I ran into in
the wild, mans-laughter.
The first one I ran into in the wild was the-rapist.
Le 29/07/2024 à 22:24, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
Hibou wrote:
I've been called stupid countless times, especially in Usenet fora, and
met many who have clung to demonstrably false beliefs (dear old
fr.soc.religion in its heyday!) - too many, I think, to infer that they
were all suffering from some syndrome or other. It's just human nature,
innit?
I will repeat, neurotypicals (NTs) and Aspies overlap a lot. But when
a person shows a bunch of separate, rare traits ...
I don't think clinging to debating positions is rare, and dismissing
critics as stupid or liars is one way of doing so. (It reminds me of >dictatorships.)
that is what
adds up to a diagnosis. And, How often does a behavior show up?
I counted at one time -- in a month, Bob called 11 different people
Stupid or Liar. Or it might have been about that many for each
word (it's been a long time). Do you excuse that as 'human nature'?
I don't excuse it at all.
I found myself interacting with him a lot because I had sort of taken
on the task of a monitor in the stats groups,
A self-appointed moderator?
and he was prone to
(even) start out, like, "You must be stupid to ask THAT." This was
from a guy who spent his working life as a college professor who
was not well liked by his students (and there is another story,
there).
He appears to have been a big influence in your life.
I don't know how much of their problem is created or influenced
by the aftermath of their own social ineptness -- a feature
have not been discussing. The Usenet autism group once posted
a note by a woman who said that her child's kindergarten teacher
praised the daughter for her 'maturity' since she never joined in
when kids were bullying or hassling. The teacher did not
recognize that the daughter was not mature, she simply did not
UNDERSTAND why the bullying was taking place; she did not
join in automatically, because she did not fit in.
Aspies are not insulted by the same things neurotypicals
consider insulting, so they make social mistakes. They get called
Stupid or Liar when they claim they did not UNDERSTAND that
someone would (or would not) be offended by something.
" - Okay, you insulted my shirt. My mama picked it out, not me.
Why should I be offended?" Or the Aspie might insult a shirt,
while imagining they were offering a trivial observation. [...]
Goodness me! I am learning a lot. (I have Asperger's myself.)
You're welcome?
Do please continue. I'm eager to learn more.
PowerGen Italia
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/powergen/ (cites others: expertsexchange,whorepresents
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:29:10 +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-07-26, Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:41:13 -0700, HenHanna <[email protected]>
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most >>>> Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
It's not wrong just because PTD said it. Over on Language Log, the
eminent sinologist Victor Mair also keeps pointing out that the
Chinese thinking that a Chinese character/syllable equals a word
is just not true and that most of the Chinese lexicon is made from
a combinations of two morphemes and rendered in two characters.
Mair contributed a chapter to Daniels and Bright, so he was probably
the source for PTD's knowledge of that.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 140:33:06 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,998 |
| Messages: | 6,517,424 |
